Successful judicial review of council’s refusal to accept a homeless review request that was 4 years late
Section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 requires homeless reviews to be requested within 21 days of receiving the decision. However, councils can choose to consider homeless review requests submitted after this time frame.
Background
Our client was a vulnerable refugee who spoke limited English, with Tigrinya as her first language. In 2020 the council discharged the main homeless duty after she refused an offer of private rented accommodation. The letter, which discharged the duty was in English. The attached sheet on translation services had no Tigrinya-translated text. Four years later, Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth helped our client understand the letter. She then submitted a homeless review request.
The council failed to reply to the request for an out-of-time review and therefore we were instructed and we submitted further information to support the request. A key element of these submissions was that our client had a 100% chance of success if a review were to go ahead. This is because the offer letter did not comply with the requirements as decided by the Court of Appeal in Norton v London Borough of Haringey (2022) EWCA Civ 1340. When the council refused the out-of-time review request, it ignored the high merits of the potential review.
Judicial Review and Outcome
We lodged a judicial review claim, challenging the lawfulness of the council’s exercise of discretion. Local authorities do not have to always consider the merits of a case when considering whether to open an out-of-time review. However, as seen in the case R v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2006] EWHC 329, local authorities can be obliged to take account of the merits of a review where the merits are so strong that, on its face, the review is bound to succeed. Our client submitted that this was such a case, and therefore the strong merits of the review had to be considered when the council was exercising its discretion.
The court granted permission and the claim was listed for a final hearing. Before the hearing, the council settled the claim. It withdrew the refusal decision and agreed to make a new decision regarding whether to accept an out-of-time review request.
Our client was represented by Solicitor, Luke Sheldon, assisted by counsel Adrian Marshall Williams of Garden Court Chambers.